Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document
Search form responses
Results for Ulcombe Parish Council search
New searchQ1 - To what extent do you agree with the proposed Vision and Objectives of the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Development Plan Document? Ulcombe Parish Council strongly disagrees Ulcombe Parish has the highest percentage of G&T pitches per settled population in the whole country. We strongly disagree with the “vision” to provide the majority of the 529 extra pitches on existing sites. We need to emphasise that the number of existing pitches and of the G&T population in Ulcombe and Headcorn have been seriously underestimated and seem to have been ignored because the proposed vision of “Putting People and the Environment First” certainly does not apply to Headcorn Ward. Headcorn Ward has about 40% of all G&T mobile homes in Maidstone Borough and we in Ulcombe are appalled at the cavalier disregard in many cases for protecting Landscapes of Local Value, and the countryside, which is constantly blighted by inappropriate development in a very unsustainable area. There is no point having countryside policies if Maidstone regularly ignores them which means the “Vision” becomes rather meaningless. Objective 1 should be reworded to say …..“in line with MBC’s Local Plan countryside policies, the PPTS planning guidelines and the NPPF on Sustainability. Objective 2 Agreed in principle Objective 3 It is all very well to talk of G & T needs, but where are the needs of the settled community listed? They have been ignored which goes against the guidelines in the PPTS. The needs of the settled community are largely ignored in Reg 18c and there is a built in bias as MBC has ignored its own Reg18c Appendix B (especially Section B.3), its Local Plan LPRHOU8 the NPPF and PPTS 2024 (para 13) which says traveller sites should be sustainable and LPA policies should promote integrated co-existence (no sign of this in Ulcombe). The Local Plan proposes to promote access to health services, ensure protection of the environment and reduce long-distance travelling. None of these “Visions” is possible in Ulcombe as we have no public transport, no village pub, no medical facilities or shops and no services. Headcorn has these facilities, but they are 5.5km away by car on a country lane with no footpath. We have had house applications refused by MBC because of unsustainability and the need for car use. MBC justifies the unsustainable nature of 127 of the proposed sites (Reg 18c Appendix C) by claiming that the deficiencies are only of “minor negative impact” (para C.3.2.2). This is a deliberate snub to the settled population of Ulcombe which cannot understand why MBC wants to overwhelm a small village when the obvious solution is to spread G & Ts more fairly around the borough or simply refuse to allow them to dominate Maidstone. MBC is perceived as a soft touch, but experience of fruit and hop picking is now perceived to be irrelevant as modern farms employ large groups of foreign workers on temporary permits. In Appendix C, it says (for example) in para C.3.2.2 on Bus stops that 127 sites are located more than 400m from a bus stop with frequent services. The distance measure is breached for many more sustainability criteria. But this breach of Appendix B3 is apparently only a “minor negative impact “when in fact it is a major negative impact if the nearest shops, medical facilities, and public transport are 5.5km away in Headcorn with no access on a narrow lane with no public transport, paths or cycle ways, In para 43 of the Reg 18c Consultation, it says that the G&T population of Maidstone is 5.74 per 1,000 residents. This is distorted because it is using town areas in Maidstone that have very few gypsies and travellers to water down the percentages. It is disgracefully misleading. In Ulcombe, the G & T population figure, including children, is between 222 and 267 based on 3 occupants in each of the 74 mobiles and 1 occupant in each tourer. The population of Ulcombe in the 2021 Census is 929 including children. The traveller population is therefore between 24% and 29% of Ulcombe’s population including children, which would rise closer to 33% if the proposed extra mobile homes in Ulcombe are agreed. This makes a mockery of the figure in para.43, on these figures we urge MBC to scrap any idea of adding more mobiles in the parish of Ulcombe or indeed in Headcorn Ward. There are serious tensions in Ulcombe between the two main traveller groups (Irish and English) and between the travellers and many in the settled community. This is why the PPTS is so specific in its guidelines about how to reduce tensions, which MBC is ignoring. The Consultation document para 19 correctly says that G&Ts have histories, heritage and traditions that distinguish them from settled communities. It is because Ulcombe is “ dominated” by such a large G & T population (PPTS para 14) that these tensions are increasing, particularly as the G&TS do not need to integrate because their communities are so large. Q2. To what extent do you agree with the proposed spatial strategy policy? Please supply comments to support yout answer. Ulcombe Parish Council strongly disagrees MBC - MOBILE COUNTING ERRORS FOR ULCOMBE PARISH We list below the errors in counting and understanding by MBC of the existing Ulcombe Mobile Count and in the Potential additional Mobile homes in Ulcombe as listed in Table C.1.1 of Appendix C. a) Existing Mobiles in Ulcombe The Mobile home count for a number of Ulcombe existing sites is incorrect in the GTAA 2023. There are 28 not 7 in the 3 sites below, plus tourers, which are often unofficially occupied by extended family members. Ulcombe Existing Mobile stock December 2025# Martins Gardens (TN27 9LJ) - 12 not 6 Neverend Lodge (ME17 1EF) - 2 not 1 Neverend Barns (ME17 1EF) - 14 not 0 Golden Oaks (ME17 1ED) - 1 The Vine, Green Hill Lane (ME17 1NF) - 5 Water Lane (Public Site) ( ME17 1DH) - 14 Opposite Water Lane (ME17 1DH) - 1 Hawthorn Farm (ME17 1EF) - 5 Roydon to rear of Vine Cottage (ME17 1EF) - 7 Roydon Farm itself (ME17 1EF) - 5 Land to rear of Neverend Farm (ME17 1EF) - 8 Total (excluding tourers) - 74 pitches b) Ulcombe Potential Additional Pitches as per Table C.1.1 in Appendix C of Reg 18c. We object to any more Mobile homes in Ulcombe because our small village of 340 dwellings is completely dominated. If these new pitches are allowed, we will have 74 +27 = 101 Mobile home pitches and a G&T population of about one third of the settled community. Ulcombe had a Call for Sites in 2019 including one G & T site at Hawthorn Farm. All 4 sites were declared to be in the red zone as unsustainable, and this is a major reason why further G & T development in Ulcombe is contrary to MBC’s own policy on sustainability. Since 2019, we now have no public transport at all. The village pub has closed and all services, cafes, shops and medical facilities are in Headcorn 5.5km away. There is no bus to Headcorn, no pavements and no cycle tracks, The road is a country lane. We have had several planning refusals by Maidstone for houses on the grounds that the use of cars would be against MBC’s policy to discourage cars. This is ludicrous in the country and it is revealing that all these sustainability policies (whether from MBC, PPTS or the NPPF) do not seem to be applied to G &T sites. This is not fair or equal treatment. We take issue with para 79 because although MBC admits the countryside has an intrinsic rural character and beauty that should be conserved and protected for its own sake. It then says that there is a need to support certain developments in the countryside where it contributes to maintaining a prosperous rural economy and to maintaining mixed communities. We would like to know what economy because supporting shops are 5.5km away and the extra mobiles do not need to be in Ulcombe for this, and we already have the most mixed community in Maidstone, Ulcombe is not a sustainable village and thus PPTS 2024 para 24 applies. It says there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This has not happened so far. And para 26 says that for traveller development applications. LPAs should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements and should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community. In PPTS para 28 it says that if the LPA cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable sites then it should check if NPPF 2024 para 11d applies. However, NPPF para 11d ii clearly says that any attempt to justify sustainable development should not take place if the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. This is definitely the case in Ulcombe, which is why we are against expanding out traveller sites. Comments on Potential Sites Hawthorn Farm, 4 sites - [LPR 032, 0116, 0264, 0225 ] proposes 7 more Mobiles - (ME17 1EF). This makes the total around Hawthorn Farm of 12 mobiles. We very much object to any more mobile homes in post code ME17 1EF which already has 41 Mobile homes dominating the settled community of 11 houses. This is not “putting the people first” as claimed in the proposed vision and completely contradicts PPTS 2024 para 14 on domination, contradicts para 23, para 24 about sustainable development, and contradicts para 26 that LPAs should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements and should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate, the nearest settled community. NPPF para 11d ii (mentioned in PPTS para 26) clearly says that any attempt to justify breaching para 26 should not take place if the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. This is the case for all potential new pitches in Ulcombe in Reg 18c. Woodview Farm C4S-003 - proposes 6 more Mobiles (ME17 1LU) - The owner of this property in 2022 applied for 6 mobile homes but it was refused by MBC and the Appeal was dismissed. The owner then sold the land in 2 halves and the two new current owners want you to drop this site from your list of potential sites. Water Lane 0145 - proposes 7 more Mobiles (ME17 1DH) - This proposal completely damages the historic environment of the Kingswood. When Water Lane caravan site was first established there were no TPOs. It sits in the middle of the Kingswood, which is an Ancient woodland protected by MBC because it is over 500 years old. No expansion of pitches is possible without cutting down and removing ancient trees. Some of the current travellers bought an area of the Kingswood on the other side of Water Lane and cut down many ancient trees protected by TPOs and submitted an application for mobile homes. MBC refused permission and the Planning Inspectorate dismissed the appeal (see APP/W/2235/C/25/3369052). We oppose any attempt by MBC to breach the Inspectorate’s decision as this would be environmental vandalism and contrary to NPPF 11d ii. Land Rear of Neverend Farm – 0248 - proposes 5 more Mobiles (ME17 1EF) - This would be adding to an existing environmental disaster. This site is landlocked with no legal or prescriptive Right of Way although the site is owned by the travellers. It was a greenfield site until about 400 tonnes of hardcore were added. The track is a private track established by the owner of Neverend Farm to give access from the road to their farm buildings and market garden which is now their garden. The G & Ts currently claim a right of way to the road but have never produced evidence. MBC refused the application for the 8 mobiles and 8 tourers and went to the High Court for a Permanent Injunction. This was granted but the G & T owners of this landlocked field went to Appeal (APP/W/2235/C/19/3243809 and 19/3241823). The Appeal was upheld although, the Local Plan says there has to be “safe access”. MBC were furious with the Appeal decision because it said that MBC’s countryside policies in the Local Plan were out of date, despite the fact that MBC policies cover the whole Borough and not field by field, and that a policy of protecting the countryside is not time restricted. This site needs to be taken off the list because it is an inappropriate site and is causing great tension. Green Hill Lane - 0114 - proposal 2 more Mobiles (ME17 1NF) - Ulcombe Parish Council objects to the proposal to increase the traffic on the narrow Lenham Road. The 0.8 hectare site already has 5 mobiles and is too small for 7 mobiles and tourers in addition to the owner’s storage of many caravans for his business. We have consistently supported MBC’s countryside policies to protect the rural environment for future generations, but generally to no avail. To say: “the settled community should have certainty about their future and that of the local environment” is welcome but not believable as MBC constantly breaks its word on sustainability, in the cause of blighting the beautiful countryside for a disputable figure of G&T “need”. It should be an objective to oppose the urbanisation of intrinsically dark landscapes in unsustainable areas as a result of hardstanding, fences, mobile homes, tourers, all night lighting and a multitude of vehicles and noise. These are reasons for refusal used by MBC if countryside applications are inappropriate but rarely on G & T applications. Many rural areas in Maidstone, especially Headcorn Ward and the villages of Ulcombe and Headcorn, have far too many G & T sites already because of the problems of poor infrastructure, and with services and facilities needing cars to access them. MBC needs to question the “so called” need for 529 pitches. Any private company faced with the problem and cost of G&T accommodation would rightly demand to have clearer details of those wanting to come to Maidstone. Otherwise, the “need” is based less on robust evidence and more on nothing but a wish list. We think MBC should apply more rigour to these speculative figures. If existing travellers in Maidstone were asked if they had a further need in the future for more pitches, the answer is bound to be “yes”. There should have been more rigour in the interviews. Given the number of G & T sites in Headcorn Ward with permanent status, they should not be expanded as per Policy TR1 because of all the current problems referred to above, including the fact that many of these sites are in unsustainable areas, like Ulcombe. The Spatial Strategy in the New Local Plan and Policy TR1 should apply to both allocated as well as to current non-allocated sites to prevent worsening an existing situation with new pitches. All new traveller sites should be allocated to Wards which have very few G & T sites, and especially to areas in or very close to the urban area, given that Headcorn Ward has about 40% of the total mobile homes in Maidstone.
As mentioned in Q2 above, UPC disagrees that 82% of new accommodation “needs” can be accommodated by expanding existing sites in areas like Ulcombe, which are unsustainable according to MBC's own designation, and because the current G & T population is probably closer to 30% of our village population, which is vastly greater than any other village in Kent or even in the country. Making existing sites larger just increases the self-sufficiency of G&Ts on such sites and worsens the chance of integration. Family sites are an unworkable concept when the families get larger in number and travellers, like the settled community, should therefore adjust to the real world and accept that living within a few miles is an acceptable option. The alternative is that ever increasing large families could always move to another area in Kent, or to elsewhere in the country, where space is more readily available, and land is cheaper. If MBC thinks it cannot allocate sufficient suitable, available and deliverable land for the disputed “need” for 529 pitches, then it has to be much more robust in questioning the claimed “need” and defend the borough, and its countryside, by declaring we cannot accommodate this level of new pitches.
UPC disagrees that the current permitted sites should be automatically safeguarded. Those sites restricted to a single family should revert back to countryside if the family no longer occupies the site and if this is already an agreed action in these circumstances. Permanent sites with a requirement for G & T occupation could be allotted to others if they qualify as G & T and can prove that there is a connection with Maidstone, but we would recommend that the sites are then classed as temporary if they are in LLVs or in unsustainable areas.
We agree that new sites should be found, however, they are best if they are public sites owned by Maidstone in, or close to, the urban area, where needs can more easily be met. Expanding existing sites is fraught with problems. The Water Lane site in Ulcombe was the only G&T site in Ulcombe when established. We now have 74 mobile homes and about 30% of our village population are already G & T. The land around the Water Lane site is Ancient Woodland dating from Henry Vlll and is now protected by TPOs. The Consultation document says on page 30 that development proposals will protect natural landscapes, including Ancient Woodland. Given this pledge, expanding the Water Lane public site should be a non-starter. We oppose any expansion into the protected Kingswood. We are against any expansion of this Water Lane site for the reasons of unsustainability mentioned above and because it would be against MBC's spatial policy of discouraging developments which need many cars to access facilities.
We agree that accommodation on non-allocated sites should be very strictly governed by the Local Plan policies on G & T accommodation and protecting the countryside. The NPPF and the guidelines in the PPTS should be adhered to, which so far, in Ulcombe, have often been ignored. Screening has often been MBC's acceptable excuse to justify the blight of inappropriate development, even in LLVs, but screening does not remove the problem caused, especially in winter. We hope MBC will actually enforce its Local Plan G & T and countryside policies. We have had occasions in the past when both MBC and the Inspectorate have agreed G&T appeals because they did not accept that PPTS para 14 saying, “domination of the nearest settled community” should also mean the settled community in the same or adjacent postcodes, rather than just the centre of the village, which could be up to 2 miles away. We hope this adjustment will be made. We also hope that MBC will exclude sites with no right of way, because driving through private property to reach a landlocked field would be “unsafe access” (policy TR7 a).
We disagree because Policy TR4 is unnecessary. Each allocated site should be assessed according to its own merits and constraints, the effect on the local settled community, and on MBC's G&T and countryside policies
We do not agree with having rural exception sites for G&Ts. There are specific policies in place for G&T accommodation applications, and to have permanent rural exception sites outside the normal planning process would complicate an already complicated subject of G&T accommodation in rural areas, in open countryside, with all the sustainability issues. In the vast majority of cases the settled and traveller communities are not inclusive or integrated and tensions exist, which prompted the production of PPTS 2015 and 2023. This needs to be recognised as it is contrary to the "Vision" that the DPD is trying to project. Policy TR6 for G&T Rural Exception Sites, in perpetuity, will further aggravate tensions and should be removed. Before MBC starts acting as if a wish list is evidenced need, we should have a rigorous interviewing process involving the settled community and their needs – perhaps in conjunction with Maidstone Kent Association Local Council (KALC)
We mainly agree with Policy TR7, especially when referring to sustainable access to community facilities, that sites should not result in significant harm to the landscape and character of an area, sites should be of a scale not to dominate the nearest settled community and consideration given to the cumulative size of multiple sites.
We agree with the broad aims of General Site Design and Layout. It is important to have effective, thick natural hedge and tree screening of any unattractive traveller sites in rural countryside, and in dark landscapes, as has happened in Ulcombe over the last 20 years. The control of excessive lighting, brick walls, closeboard fencing, excessive hardstanding etc is necessary to reduce the urbanising effect of these sites in quiet rural areas. The problem with large well landscaped sites is that there is a lot of vacant space which can accommodate unallocated additional mobile homes. Enforcement has great difficulty in doing anything about this, as with The Meadows site in Headcorn. The average recommended pitch size is twice the size of a large bungalow site. We consider this far too big in Kent where land is expensive and in short supply.
